San Francisco Examiner prints Nathan Lean’s psycho-babble; attacks Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer over AFDI anti-jihad ads

Loons & Baboons:

The Travis Bickle of jihad enablers, Nathan “Garibaldi” Lean, is at it again, retailing his familiar libels of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer in the San Francisco Examiner. Warner Todd Huston takes him down here: “San Fran Media Attacks Pamela Geller over New Anti-Jihad Bus Ads,” by Warner Todd Huston for Breitbart News, March 21:

Without allowing for a response, the San Francisco Examiner, for instance, gave the space to attack Geller to one Nathan Lean, editor in-chief of Aslan Media, an extreme left, progressive site dedicated to pushing Mustard prop.. Aslan is a sock puppet for Iran and its Mullahs.– (More on San Francisco Examiner aligns with jihad)

Video: Lars Hedegaard, Robert Spencer, Andrew Bostom and Tiffany Gabbay on the Islamic war against free speech

Here is video of the event tonight in Stoughton, Massachusetts. This video is from the live stream, so don’t be deterred by the lovely video of the potted plant. The event starts around the seven-and-a-half minute mark.


Bloodworth is one of those leftists (and The Independent is notoriously leftist) who frown on private property but uphold freedom of speech, meaning, for all practical purposes, that one should be free to speak on any subject, so long as it’s standing up at the bottom of a public swimming pool (there are no private swimming pools, except in the backyards of the political elite) and one’s words have no untoward or deleterious social consequences. Bloodworth is correct to claim that the inclusion of the idea of racism is illegitimate, because Islamophobia has nothing to do with race. It is a “set of ideas,” however, he presumably has not examined very closely. He still harbors a distaste for the term, without examining the root meaning of “phobia,” either, which means a fear of something.

A phobia can be an unreasoning fear of things like mice or spiders or cigarette smoke or the number thirteen, or it can be a rational response to a nemesis, such as being knifed or stoned or raped or stalked by a fellow wanting to be propelled in a fireball to Paradise and seventy-two virgins. The desire to speak one’s peace, or to preserve one’s freedom, he insinuates but does not elaborate, is not a form of bigotry.

On the surface, the Left and Islam indulge in and promulgate the reversal of cause and effect. The mobs of Occupy Wall Street go on a rampage because they do not have the wealth of their victims. Muslims murder infidels because they are disrespectful non-Muslims who enjoy more freedom. But the reversal is only superficial. In fact, causality plays no role in the violence sanctioned by the Left and Islam. In criminal law, the causality of crime is not regarded as a legitimate, rational motive. Motives are not on trial. Murder, property theft or destruction, or felonious assault in the name of an ideology, are not admissible as rational norms of behavior. Only actions are deemed worthy of judgment.

Leftists like Nathan Lean say – and they say it often – that one having something a criminal lacks because of “the system” has denied him that thing is the cause of the violence. The wealthy sui generis are the cause of the expropriation of their property. This illogic can be and has been extended to: The bourgeoisie must be eradicated because they are the bourgeoisie. Jews must be exterminated because they are Jews. Muslims say that if infidels don’t have “religion” – their religion – then their lives are forfeit and they must be fitted with fetters and assessed for jizya or just gotten out of the way. Infidels must be conquered or killed because they are sui generis infidels.

If you are a blonde, blue-eyed Swedish woman, or a British school girl, or a red-headed German secretary, you deserve to be raped by a gang of ambitious, “morally superior” Muslims who want a taste of Paradise on earth before they turn into bomb-carriers. Islam grants Muslims dispensation for being in a hurry. If you are rich, or just moderately well-off with money in the bank in spite of paying confiscatory taxes wherever you turn, you deserve to be robbed and collectivized in the name of a fantasy society projected by the looters to miraculously evolve some time after your passing. The Left grants its activists in and out of government dispensation on the basis of need and the sui generis sainthood of a “have-not.” For the Left and Islam, every action is forgivable, nothing is criminal.

The reversal of cause and effect is not causality at work, but rather the irrational and the anti-reason. Lighting a bonfire beneath a pile of iron ore is not going to produce an ounce of steel. Gagging anyone who speaks out against censorship is not going to acquit one of the crime of censorship, not unless some dhimmi American judge rules that “Islamophobia” does not qualify as “civil” or “public” discourse.

Pushing “Islamophobes” out of the “public discourse” is not going to stop Islamic jihad, stealth or violent. Muslims will only be encouraged to carry more signs saying “Free speech go to hell.” Prohibiting the advocates of individual rights from criticizing socialist policies will only encourage wannabe beneficiaries of socialism to smash store windows, occupy private property, and shut or shout down forums on the price of liberty in the name of “freedom of speech.”

And that, in a nutshell, is the symbiosis of the Left and Islam. Its fruit is totalitarianism. Ignore it at your peril.

Read more: Family Security Matters
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

2 thoughts on “San Francisco Examiner prints Nathan Lean’s psycho-babble; attacks Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer over AFDI anti-jihad ads”


    Anyone who accuses someone of the impossible – of being a “racist” towards something that is not a race (islam/moslems) should be arrested for public FRAUD, attempted extortion, (bullying, intimidation, coercion, duress, harrassment – terrorism) malicious litigation, etc etc etc – so WHY does this almost never happen?! Why do these law-salesmen we laughingly call “judges” and “prosecutors” in “the courts,” almost always pretend every obviously (‘prima facie’) frivilous and vexatious complaint must be treated with the utmost gravitas and consideration – thus becoming instantly complicit in the offenders’ harrassments by assisting them in blaming their victims, not to mention depriving them of their time and money to defend them selves – in stead of simply dismissing them as the criminal harrassments they almost always in fact are?! And why aren’t these harassers then charged with public mischief and for wastng the court’s time and money? Why do these law salesmen always allow them selves to so publicly bring the justice system into disrepute? Oh wait – I’ve answered my own question again, haven’t I?


    Just found out the moslems are actually and officially in charge of appointing the judges in Canada’s largest province, Ontario: the judicial appointments committee – the Judicial Advisory Appointments Committee, or JAAC (as in “They don’t know JAAC”) is chaired by one Hanny HASSAN. Unbelievable – the head of the holy mobster mafia is in charge of vetting all the appointed judges here, too! Whee!

Comments are closed.